It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

 

[Syriusly]

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them.

Gays married long before the law changed bigot

As I said-

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them

I don't think most of the world wants sibling marriage.

You want our thanks for that?

You are looney

Pop and his straw man.

Meanwhile

As I said-

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them

 

[Syriusly]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

Ask the states. Read what the courts have said. Read any of my previous posts on the matter.

Or just keep dancing with your incest straw man.

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.
.

That is what you keep claiming.

Because you ignore what anyone else says.

Wisconsin marriage law allows first cousins to marry but only if they can prove that they procreate together.
But Wisconsin marriage law does not allow siblings to marry- even if they can prove that they cannot procreate together.

Your straw man won't dance by itself.

Your bigotry towards homosexuals continues.

You are aware that not long ago Wisconsin law prohibited same sex marriage.

You opened the door, now equal protection will rear its ugly head.

Dimwit

 

[Pop23]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

Ask the states. Read what the courts have said. Read any of my previous posts on the matter.

Or just keep dancing with your incest straw man.

You can spout nonsense till the cows come home.

You created a very ugly situation and won't own up to it.

What an infant

 

[Syriusly]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.
.

That is what you keep claiming.

Because you ignore what anyone else says.

Wisconsin marriage law allows first cousins to marry but only if they can prove that they procreate together.
But Wisconsin marriage law does not allow siblings to marry- even if they can prove that they cannot procreate together.

Your straw man won't dance by itself.

Your bigotry towards homosexuals continues.

You are aware that not long ago Wisconsin law prohibited same sex marriage.

You opened the door, now equal protection will rear its ugly head.

Dimwit

Irrelevant

Just as an idiot like you are.

Americans who are gay are getting married, their children are getting the protections of legal marriage, and life is wonderful

Except for butt hurt bigots like you.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

Ask the states. Read what the courts have said. Read any of my previous posts on the matter.

Or just keep dancing with your incest straw man.

You can spout nonsense till the cows come home.

You created a very ugly situation and won't own up to it.

What an infant

What a sad little bigot you are.

Pissed off because no one will dance with your straw man.

 

[Montrovant]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

I might agree, but then again, there is no requirement for sex in marriage, so we would be creating a prohibition based on what?

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.

If not, then you have an equal protection problem.

Prior to the recent ruling, all closely related relatives were prohibited because males plus females (the only pairing allowed), could create children. It made sense to prohibit ALL, now, two siblings of the same sex cannot. So?

You also understand that one of the early rulings on same sex marriage was based on a lesbian woman who, because she could not marry her partner, had to pay inheritance tax. The same claim could be made by thousands of people each year who could easily just marry a parent to get around the law.

Again, unless there is sexual contact, there is no incest.

Whether or not there is sexual contact is not the only possible reason to prevent close relations marriages.

 

[Boss]

Again you are just echoing exactly what the State of Virginia said.

It doesn't matter because the argument is different. Why are you not comprehending that? If you walk into court to defend yourself of a crime you didn't commit and you state to the judge that you are "not guilty" ...the judge doesn't accuse you of "echoing exactly what the last defended said!"

Why are you not comprehending the primary reason people marry is because they love each other and want to make the life long commitment to the person they love?

And what does the state or a piece of paper from the government, OR... a SCOTUS ruling have to do with that? As I have said before... I attended a gay wedding in 1986... in rural Alabama! There was no redneck sheriff there to stop it... no county clerk there with her bible forbidding it. Just two beautiful gay people who were surrounded by supporting friends and family, enjoying a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a peaceful southern mountainside. 1986... Rural Alabama.

Strangely enough, it is this very couple who I credit for my personal views on this issue.

The state sanctions that. That is what it has to do with it. Sadly, you cannot grasp the reality that the primary reason people marry is out of love and commitment to each other.

The state sanctions what... your life-long commitment or your love?

 

[Boss]

Again- you just are parroting the arguments of the State of Virginia.

Just like you argue that same gender marriage is not a real marriage- the State of Virginia argued- and actually codified into law- that there was no interracial marriage- any such attempt was legally null and void- and a criminal offense to boot.

And this bring us down to the intellectual dishonesty of your arguments.

Your arguments are as bigoted- and as invalid- as the State of Virginia's when they argued in support of a mixed race ban.

The only difference of course- is when the Supreme Court ruled against the State of Virginia, most of Americans agreed with Virginia- not with the Supreme Court.

When the court ruled overturning bans on same gender marriage, the court was actually following public opinion- most Americans are in favor of marriage equality for Americans who are gay.

Again, it doesn't matter if I am parroting the same arguments about a completely different issue. Because an argument was not sufficient in Case A, doesn't mean it is insufficient in Case B. Yes, Virginia argued there was no such thing as interracial marriage and the court found (correctly) that if the only difference was color of skin it violated the Civil Rights Act.

The mixed-race ban did not apply to all races, it applied to blacks marrying whites specifically. The segregationists fought for it by arguing it was a moral religious issue and they were wrong. Public opinion doesn't matter with regard to what is right and wrong. You can't deny something allowed to others on the basis of skin color, that is wrong according to the Civil Rights Act, a law passed which states this precisely.

So in Loving you have the court upholding the law and not changing marriage other than to desegregate it... In Ogeberfell you have an activist court lawlessly rewriting the definition of marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals. These are not the same thing.

 

[Syriusly]

Again- you just are parroting the arguments of the State of Virginia.

Just like you argue that same gender marriage is not a real marriage- the State of Virginia argued- and actually codified into law- that there was no interracial marriage- any such attempt was legally null and void- and a criminal offense to boot.

And this bring us down to the intellectual dishonesty of your arguments.

Your arguments are as bigoted- and as invalid- as the State of Virginia's when they argued in support of a mixed race ban.

The only difference of course- is when the Supreme Court ruled against the State of Virginia, most of Americans agreed with Virginia- not with the Supreme Court.

When the court ruled overturning bans on same gender marriage, the court was actually following public opinion- most Americans are in favor of marriage equality for Americans who are gay.

So in Loving you have the court upholding the law and not changing marriage other than to desegregate it... In Ogeberfell you have an activist court lawlessly rewriting the definition of marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals. These are not the same thing.

LOL- you are hopeless.

As I pointed out- your arguments are exactly the same as those of Virginia's- and for the exact same reasons.

You do not consider the discrimination you promote to be discrimination.

The courts did the exact same thing in both Obergefell and Loving- they ruled on the constitutionality of State marriage laws.

And in both cases they found that the laws in question were unconstitutional.

So of course you call the court in the case of Obergefel an 'activist' court.

Just like every bigot who objected to Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Boss]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

They can't answer your question because the truth is, you are correct. So they accuse you of making a "straw man" argument and proceed to ridicule and laugh at a notion that, when the time comes, they'll proudly stand up and make the arguments for. You can read it in their replies now... all it will take is a few 'very special episodes' of Oprah... Ellen... Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopie... Suddenly, when it becomes the "in-thing" these loony tunes will be all over it. They have no morals... they are sheep waiting to be led.

 

[Boss]

LOL- you are hopeless.

As I pointed out- your arguments are exactly the same as those of Virginia's- and for the exact same reasons.

No, YOU are hopeless. As I pointed out, it's two different issues so it doesn't matter if the arguments are the same, which they aren't.

And in both cases they found that the laws in question were unconstitutional.

Yes, but in Loving, they based this on the law and without fundamentally changing the institution of marriage. In Ogeberfell they have no legal basis for their decision and it fundamentally changes what marriage is. The discussion we are now having is not over whether or not SCOTUS made a ruling that something was unconstitutional. I think even the most retarded person on this forum can comprehend that SCOTUS made the ruling in Ogeberfell.... that's not debatable. Obviously, there are two sides, one who thinks it was an appropriate ruling and another who thinks it wasn't... again, not something debatable. And yet... you continue to want to fall back on this by default whenever the argument isn't going your way.

 

[Seawytch]

[QUOTE="Boss, post: 12447750, member:]

Again, it doesn't matter if I am parroting the same arguments about a completely different issue. Because an argument was not sufficient in Case A, doesn't mean it is insufficient in Case B. Yes, Virginia argued there was no such thing as interracial marriage and the court found (correctly) that if the only difference was color of skin it violated the Civil Rights Act. [/quote]

Where was the CRA mentioned in the Loving decision?

The mixed-race ban did not apply to all races, it applied to blacks marrying whites specifically.

Wrong again: (wiki)

All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.

The segregationists fought for it by arguing it was a moral religious issue and they were wrong.

Huh...much like anti gay bigots do today...imagine that.

Public opinion doesn't matter with regard to what is right and wrong. You can't deny something allowed to others on the basis of skin color, that is wrong according to the Civil Rights Act, a law passed which states this precisely.

It certainly didn't with anti miscegenation laws. 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when Loving was ruled upon.

So in Loving you have the court upholding the law and not changing marriage other than to desegregate it... In Ogeberfell you have an activist court lawlessly rewriting the definition of marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals. These are not the same thing.

In both cases the fundamental right to marry was recognized (also in Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safely...neither case having to do with race).

 

[Mertex]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

 

[Syriusly]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

Why am I not surprised you continue to run from the argument.

What is the sound reasonable argument, since the same sex ruling to deny same sex hetro siblings from marrying?

They can't answer your question because the truth is, you are correct. So they accuse you of making a "straw man" argument and proceed to ridicule and laugh at a notion that, when the time comes, they'll proudly stand up and make the arguments for..

Once again- you sound just like the State of Virginia- when Virginia said legalizing mixed race marriages would lead to polygamy and incest.

Not a surprise- bigotry is bigotry. Bigots are bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- you are hopeless.

As I pointed out- your arguments are exactly the same as those of Virginia's- and for the exact same reasons.

No, YOU are hopeless. As I pointed out, it's two different issues so it doesn't matter if the arguments are the same, which they aren't.

And in both cases they found that the laws in question were unconstitutional.

Yes, but in Loving, they based this on the law and without fundamentally changing the institution of marriage.

In both cases they based their decision on the U.S. Constitution.

In both cases they affirmed the right of Americans to marry.

Virginia said that would change the institution of marriage- because Virginia said mixed race marriages were not marriages at all.

Just like you say same gender marriages are not marriages.

Bigots are bigots.

Whether its because of race- or because of sexual preference.

 

[Boss]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

In essence, yes... My argument has always been regarding the importance of traditional marriage and what many people have a fundamental connection to in a cultural as well as a religious way. I don't feel that is being respected and I think that is intentional. This issue is not really about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, it's about tearing down moral and traditional values. It's a big steamy dump on the Church. It's a chance for Socialist Seculars to flex some political muscle and act righteous in the face of indignity.

My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US! I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That's what marriage is. It can't be something else simply because we wish to accommodate people's sexuality. I understand. I sympathize. I just don't agree that's what we have to do and I think it's a terrible mistake we are making that will come back to haunt us.

And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.

 

[Montrovant]

no authority on the planet earth gets to arbitrarily define "marriage remains the union of a man and a woman," so for you to think thats somehow objective and not some arbitrary opinion is giggle worthy and its also no longer the precedent in your very own Country. Society has now advanced past "your" opinion and has adopted a new one. Suck it up, pippy.

So, essentially, your argument is... we can arbitrarily change whatever any word means and make it mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate what we desire. I kind of think that general policy MIGHT pose a problem down the road somewhere. I also think... unless we've redefined what "free speech" means, I have the right to disagree with this policy and warn people that it's an idiotic idea.

Oh, so your whole argument is not against homosexuals being allowed to get married....your whole beef is that the word "marriage" only applies to man and a woman......and homosexuals need to find another word to describe their union......I get it......

so, why don't you do like Sarah Palin and coin a new word for them. .......how about "smarriage"? That sounds like a good word.

In essence, yes... My argument has always been regarding the importance of traditional marriage and what many people have a fundamental connection to in a cultural as well as a religious way. I don't feel that is being respected and I think that is intentional. This issue is not really about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples, it's about tearing down moral and traditional values. It's a big steamy dump on the Church. It's a chance for Socialist Seculars to flex some political muscle and act righteous in the face of indignity.

My personal view is that government shouldn't be telling us what we can call marriage. It doesn't matter which kind, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide, it should be up to US! I suggested, years ago, that we should replace "marriage licenses" with simple two-party contracts, if there is some need for such defining of domestic partnership. This would benefit any two people who want to use it, regardless of their intimate relations. I have no problem with that and I don't think most people would. I see that as a solution to the problem which respects all sides and resolves the issue to the best it can be solved for all.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That's what marriage is. It can't be something else simply because we wish to accommodate people's sexuality. I understand. I sympathize. I just don't agree that's what we have to do and I think it's a terrible mistake we are making that will come back to haunt us.

And hey, I get that you are all excited by this and think you've now won the war and everything is right with the world because of this ruling.... but I've got news for you... Those who oppose what has been done are not going to walk around the rest of their lives with heads hung in shame like beaten children. Bibles aren't going to rewrite themselves to make homosexuality acceptable. And now that you've established the court as the arbiter of morality for us all, don't be surprised to find the court in your bedroom telling you which sexual positions are constitutional and which ones might violate constitutional rights of others.

I think you are very wrong about most people having no problem with removing the word marriage from government. I think the idea of marriage as a state sanctioned institution is far too intrinsic to people's thinking at this point. It would take some time for opinions about the importance of using that word in legal partnerships as well as religious ones to change.

How did the Obergefell ruling 'establish the court as the arbiter of morality for us all'? Particularly, how were none of the USSC ruling of the past in any way morality based but this one was?

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

I might agree, but then again, there is no requirement for sex in marriage, so we would be creating a prohibition based on what?

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.

If not, then you have an equal protection problem.

Prior to the recent ruling, all closely related relatives were prohibited because males plus females (the only pairing allowed), could create children. It made sense to prohibit ALL, now, two siblings of the same sex cannot. So?

You also understand that one of the early rulings on same sex marriage was based on a lesbian woman who, because she could not marry her partner, had to pay inheritance tax. The same claim could be made by thousands of people each year who could easily just marry a parent to get around the law.

Again, unless there is sexual contact, there is no incest.

Whether or not there is sexual contact is not the only possible reason to prevent close relations marriages.

All of which can, and do exist with non related marriages.

Not seeing how that will apply but I am willing to listen.